Indiana Supreme Court Rules AGAINST Fourth Amendmentby Da King on May 14, 2011

In freedom,supreme court,US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. – Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That's what it says in the Bill Of Rights, but the Indiana Supreme Court just said differently:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

There are so many things wrong with this Judge's statement that I barely know where to start. The Indiana Supreme Court is actually defending an "unlawful police entry into a home". What part of "unlawful" don't they understand ? The law applies to the police as well as the public. I guess "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" means the Fourth Amendment no longer applies. I cannot effing believe this. And I'd really like to know what "public policy" the Judge is talking about that nullifies the supreme law of the land. As for the Judge's attempted justification that resistance to an unlawful police raid "unnecessarily escalates the level of violence", what the hell is that about ? A woman who resists a rape attempt is risking an escalation of the violence level too, but that doesn't mean she should let herself be raped. This Judge is a freaking idiot. He's condoning unlawful behavior on the grounds that resisting it might lead to violence. Well, no sh*t, Sherlock, but the crime is being committed by the person(s) engaging in the unlawful behavior, not the victim(s).

The idiot Judge David continued:

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

Oh, how kind of the idiot Judge David to maintain that a citizen still has a right to his day in court following his unlawful arrest from an unlawful entry by the police into his home. What a guy. I'm so glad he doesn't want to destroy ALL our civil rights in one fell swoop. Maybe Judge David won't try to get rid of that silly "day in court" thingy until next year. Then we can go full-on Gestapo.

You can read the details of the case that brought about this putrid ruling at the link above. The two dissenting judges pointed out the painfully obvious:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

Yes, the police can enter your house with probable cause, but torching the entire Fourth Amendment is most definitely an "unnecessarily broad" ruling, to put it mildly. It's like saying a policeman shooting your entire family in the head because you were caught driving 35 miles per hour in a school zone is an "unnecessarily broad" reaction to your infraction. No kidding.

This isn't the first recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling on the subject:

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

Let me see if I have this straight. In Indiana, the police can now enter your home without knocking at any time and arrest you, all without a warrant, probable cause, or anything.

Hmmm. Isn't that exactly what Anne Frank was worried about during the Nazi occupation ? Isn't that why she was hiding ? It's good to know we've brought that to Indiana now, right here in the alleged land of the free.

For what it's worth, here's what I have regarding the political appointments of these Indiana Judges.

The good guys who dissented:Judge Dickson was appointed by a Republican Governor (Robert Orr).Judge Rucker was appointed by a Democratic Governor (Frank O'Bannon)

The bad guys who ruled to destroy the Constitution:Judge David was appointed by a Republican Governor (Mitch Daniels)Judge Shepard was appointed by a Republican Governor (Robert Orr).Judge Sullivan was appointed by a Democratic Governor (Evan Bayh).

I'm not sure what this means, other than neither political party has a corner on ignorance, or wisdom. I bet Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN), who is considering running for President, isn't going to be too happy to be connected to the idiot Judge David, unless Daniels agrees with him. I sure hope he doesn't.

"David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. "

Oh, I get it... similar to the rape analogy.... the rape victim can still press charges against her attacker after she has been raped. WTF?!?

It sounds like the case in question was about a domestic violence situation. If that is/was the case, why is this in issue being looked at in the courts? The courts have always held that if there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger the police may enter. That would not be an "unreasonable" search. But to throw away the 4th amendment because it isn't "modern"?

These justices have no right to serve any longer, they need to be disbarred immediately. This kind of crap really upsets me. Who are these arrogant egotists to think that they have the right to overturn the US constitution? I hope they are made to feel very unwelcome in their communities.